Well, the plaintiff won Round 1 in Alexandria court. From here it goes to Lake Charles to appeals court and possible all the way to the Supreme Court. The state has already said that if the plaintiff ultimately wins, they will not close the gates to back the water up and create the lake. The plaintiff will likely want it flooded in order to lease duck blind spots. There has to be some sort of middle ground settlement. Give them some back pay from oil revenues, maintain the flooding regime, continue pumping oil and give them royalties.

Well, the plaintiff won Round 1 in Alexandria court. From here it goes to Lake Charles to appeals court and possible all the way to the Supreme Court. The state has already said that if the plaintiff ultimately wins, they will not close the gates to back the water up and create the lake. The plaintiff will likely want it flooded in order to lease duck blind spots. There has to be some sort of middle ground settlement. Give them some back pay from oil revenues, maintain the flooding regime, continue pumping oil and give them royalties.

Two landowners filed suit saying they own property that is under water when flooded. They say the area is a river until the state built a control structure on it and flooded it for a lake. They said the state never legally bought the property. According to the judge, they were right. It has nothing to do with duck hunting but the oil revenues that have been pulled off that land for years. These people want their oil money.